Site Plan Relationships and Housing Leadership Decisions

Diagram 1 focuses on the role of open space and movement in and around a single-family residential site plan. The diagram eliminates open space normally devoted to setback areas in a typical single-family residential site plan. It also adds a dedicated pedestrian right-of-way separated from vehicular movement. The intent is to reduce the land required for a home of any size and improve its pedestrian setting; but future expansion would be limited to floor quantity increases, assuming adequate initial structural design.

The atrium concept of Diagram 1 is as old as Rome. It is a departure from Rome because pedestrian access is separated from the plan’s vehicular access to create a social side and service side for the dwelling. The size of the dwelling unit is a variable issue.

The strategy depends on the concentrated use of core open space, the elimination of border setback areas, and the separation of conflicting pedestrian and vehicular movement. The arrangement returns to an ancient atrium pattern but attempts to recognize the vast changes in movement conflict and spatial expectations that have taken place. The plan, however, is not the message nor is it the size of the dwelling unit. The message is the relationship of spaces involved, and the potential reduction of lot area per dwelling unit represented. When a “small home” is involved, the reduction could be significant but it is not an infill suggestion.

If you have been associated with design, you know that there are many answers to the same question, which in this case is affordable lot and housing area.

The diagram is not presented as an architectural solution. Lot area quantities and relationships are the message. These quantities include open space, building height, footprint area, parking area, miscellaneous pavement area, and the role of pedestrian and vehicular movement. They all consume irreplaceable land and they all contribute to the cost of housing. Careful consideration and correlation are needed now that construction cost and land consumption are becoming more visible issues-- as well as correlation with existing housing patterns and adjacency expectations. Based on this:

1)      What are the site plan quantities and relationships that combine to produce a desirable single-family residential quality of life on the least land?

2)      What is a desirable pedestrian relationship with the movement systems that serve the dwelling unit?

HISTORY

Lot size has puzzled me ever since I lived on a 30 x 102-foot lot with a 10-foot front yard setback, a detached garage with driveway to the street that barely scraped by the house, and an alley to the rear that was not wide enough to accommodate a turning radius into a garage. It was one of the larger lots on the street. Other lots were narrower and could not provide driveways, nor could the narrow alley serve their outbuildings with adequate turning radii. I assume horses had no problem in the past. The increase in cars forced houses to use curb-parking on both sides of a two-way street. It made the street a one-way movement system that depended on courtesy and deference to function. The result was frustration, anxiety, and a risk to children. We were warned at home and at school that darting between parked cars could result in injury or death. They expected us to take this seriously.

When we moved to a 50 x 120-foot lot with a 25-foot front yard setback I subconsciously felt relieved but did not realize it may have been from lower density. I later learned that a more affluent suburb had banned 50-foot-wide lots. I have always assumed that this occurred because the lot width did not accommodate attached garages, and that detached garages constrained the rear yard area.

Mandatory lot widths increased to 60, 75, 90 feet and above in this affluent suburb in response to the zone involved. Attached garages with driveways to the street became the norm and curb parking was only needed for overflow visitor demand. Setback areas increased, even though increased yard areas were rarely used and contributed more to the appearance of affluence than to functional need. The standard front yard depth was 40 feet. Side yards also increased but lot depth remained at 120 feet. Curb appeal increased and rear yards benefited from the removal of detached garages, but suffered from the increased front yard depth.

In my opinion, the historic front yard setback concept introduced visual consistency to unify disparate building styles and plans. The side yard setback attempted to reduce the depressing compression of 1 to 3-foot side yard “slots” often found among 19^th and early 20^th century buildings. The rear yard setback attempted to offer a limited degree of single-family relief from the prior intensity of multi-family apartments and tenements. The concept of a “lot” attempted to offer land ownership to more than a privileged few.

YARDS

The location of setback areas on lots is worth considering, since our current front, side, and rear yard concepts add considerable cost to a housing objective that is now being asked to be affordable, but “affordable” is relative, setbacks improve the consistency of piecemeal appearance, and infill solutions have their own potential problems.

SITE PLANS

Every site plan is a cell in a shelter organism. It is served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support that combine to form a Built Domain that is attempting to consume its source of life, the Natural Domain. (I have previously admitted that open space arteries are more of a dream than reality.) The size of each residential cell and its internal quantity relationships, including the home “footprint”, determines the land area consumed and its relationship to its neighbors.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing will simply be another residential cell in the Built Domain. Its characteristics as an infill solution should be carefully considered to ensure that it does not become malignant. It may be that new neighborhoods and/or zones are required. If new land is taken for the purpose, the risk of continuing sprawl for low density, “affordable”, housing will remain. There are no easy answers in my opinion. This may be why many countries use far more multi-family housing and why the pedestrian orientation of their ancient streets is admired.

URBAN DESIGN

The problem deserves urban design attention on a much larger scale, but this represents a dramatic departure from the piecemeal answers provided by our present approach to single-family residential housing and the sprawl it has produced.

The piecemeal approach was a greater problem in the past. It produced adjacency conflicts that led to public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Master plans and zoning districts were established in response to this piecemeal freedom. The concept is needed in my opinion, but its strict definition of “adjacency” is undergoing refinement, and its ability to mathematically evaluate economic stability at the cellular or census block level of neighborhoods and districts is relatively nonexistent. This is why I have used the term “malignant”. It will remain a matter of opinion until urban design can improve its mathematical definitions.

Walter M. Hosack, December 2025

WHAT IS TEGIMENICS?

I was asked to explain the word “tegimenics” in a post but was restricted by its character limit. I’m adding a few words to provide a short, and hopefully better, explanation.

Tegimenics is a new term encompassing the building design categories, forecast models, design specifications, algorithms, and master equations of shelter capacity calculation and evaluation. Shelter capacity is equal to gross building area in square feet divided by the buildable land area occupied. Results have measurable shelter intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The term is borrowed from the Latin word for shelter: tegimen. I've called the urban design knowledge and leadership language that can be assembled from this specification and measurement, evaluation, and prediction: Tegimenology. If interested, please see my book, "The Equations of Urban Design" available on Amazon.com and 270+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent are also located on LinkedIn. A list of these essays is a recent submission to my blog and to LinkedIn.

I should begin by explaining that everything flows from the building design categories, forecast models, and design specification values entered in consistent forecast model formats. The results are predictions, or measurements, of the gross building area options related to floor quantity choices and a given buildable land area. The implications of these predictions are calculated in each forecast model. I've compared these implications to our first blood pressure readings. Research can identify those that are healthy to improve our ability to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations in limited geographic areas defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

SUMMARY

Tegimenics is an umbrella term for shelter capacity measurement, prediction, comparison, and evaluation in city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, architecture, engineering, government, real estate investment, real estate law, urban geography, and other affiliated professions.

Is Architecture a Profession?

 

This is in response to a post on LinkedIn regarding a federal contention that architecture is no longer a professional degree eligible for annual professional education loan limits.

I am not defending architectural education in its current form since I don’t believe it emphasizes the correlation required to lead the contributing professions involved in enough detail -- without the apprenticeship and experience required after the degree award. This does not mean an architect should be an engineer. It means that he/she must be able to evaluate the attributes of all system decisions and equipment choices as part of his/her consultant leadership effort. There may be little popular appreciation for this strategic training since popular opinion rarely considers more than single-family housing.

A plan is a strategy. In architectural terms it is called programming and schematic design during its evaluation, discussion, and formation. Its formal definition involves the correlation of many regulatory, technical and engineering professions. They labor with architectural coordination to shape the plan into a set of contract documents that define the tactical objectives involved. Bidding the plan secures the lowest, but not necessarily the best, price for the campaign. At this point a second wave of tactical mobilization begins with a clearly defined goal. Both strategy and tactics require leadership.

The Normandy invasion is remembered for the tactical action involved. The same is true for architecture. It is remembered for the form and appearance produced, not the strategy involved.

A professional army depends on strategic leadership. Anything less increases the chances of failure. Construction is a battle with an army in the field. Its strategic plans are essential, but they have often led to sprawl and excessive intensity. In my opinion, two the causes are inadequate shelter capacity knowledge and professional advice that has been subject to both investor and popular veto based on a lack of convincing, credible knowledge in the hands of either advocate.

I am not applauding our current success. I do not believe, however, that further deemphasis on the professional measurement, evaluation, comparison and correlation required to build the knowledge required for a  sustainable future will be encouraged by de-emphasizing the acquisition of strategic knowledge. It is the invisible foundation for planning decisions and tactical shelter construction activity.

Choose whatever adjective you prefer for architecture if you wish to argue over “licensed profession” but fund its education in relation to the role shelter knowledge must play in protecting the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect agriculture and their source of life from destruction, pollution, and consumption.

Architectural plans are part of shelter planning on the planet. They define a cellular strategy that combines to form a physical anatomy that we further define with city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, engineering, real estate development, geography, politics, environmental science, economic development, and so on. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, and we deemphasize its sustainable relationship to the Natural Domain when we discourage pursuit of the professional knowledge required to understand the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: In my opinion, architecture must become a growing, transferable, mathematical, leadership language of shelter capacity research, evaluation, correlation, and knowledge. Part of this opinion is based on my belief that pictures and sculpture are fine art, but that architecture is shelter. It is far more relevant to the decisions we face, and its appearance will symbolize our success or failure.

The challenge we face is an improved ability to correlate the tactical efforts of many. It is anticipation, creativity, and strategic leadership in its most complex form in my opinion. Call it what you will but focus on the objective and fund it accordingly unless you take our presence on the planet for granted.

WM HOSACK BLOG LIST SEPT. 2010 THROUGH NOV. 2025

 

The following update list attempts to assist those who may be interested in the essays I have published since 2010. It includes all published on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and those published on LinkedIn since July 2016.
Those published from October 2020 to April 2023 have been published in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, available on Amazon.com. I plan to continue with updates as needed and hope the list proves useful.

Revenue Implications of Shelter Capacity and Land Use Activity Investment

The land is a city’s source of income. If it doesn’t deliver average revenue per taxable acre equal to its total annual expense per taxable acre, the annual deficit must be reconciled with budget reductions or depletion of its “rainy-day” fund.

I doubt that many cities even know their total annual expense per taxable acre or their total annual revenue per taxable acre. It would be easy to calculate expense per gross acre, but it would be more difficult to calculate by taxable acre, and even more difficult to calculate by taxable, buildable acre. It would be relatively meaningless information, anyway, if it were not contained in a database format of additional information organized by street address, parcel number, census block, census tract, and zoning district number at the very least. (Delete or compartmentalize street address and parcel number if privacy is a concern.) This would allow geographic information mapping of database information at the cellular level of the urban anatomy. Comparing revenue to expense at this level is one way to evaluate the economic health of its various blocks, tracts, and zones. It is the only way, in my opinion, to identify the scope of land use area/activity and additions/adjustments needed to improve a city’s average revenue per taxable, buildable acre. It represents digital urban design, economic planning, mapping, and geographic evaluation at the cellular level of the urban anatomy, but it relies on information sharing arrangements and agreements. Annexation or redevelopment without this information will continue with hope as a strategy based on a lack of analytical data and evaluation. It will produce continuing consumption of agriculture and our source of life, the Natural Domain. Much investment in research, evaluation, debate, and leadership remains if we hope to respect the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

At the present time we lack information sharing agreements and reliable data regarding the revenue that can be expected per square foot of gross building area and activity. Until then, the shelter capacity of land and its revenue potential per square foot of activity cannot be usefully linked to improve our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect their quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

photo credit: BLM Wyoming

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 Our capacity to shelter all forms of activity will always depend on the gross building area potential of the land involved and the site plan that serves it. 

The land required for housing revolves around what is defined as a dwelling unit. The correlation of land and dwelling takes on greater importance when the issue is “affordable housing”. The potential to provide this housing involves many physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic factors that I’ve collected under the phrase “shelter capacity evaluation”, or Tegimenics. My focus has been on the measurement and evaluation of the physical factors I am qualified to address.

Table 1 defines a detached 2-story dwelling shown in Fig. 1. It was built in 1903 on a 30x105 foot lot and was built at a time when many lots were 20-25 feet wide or less and did not have enough lot width for the driveway shown. I’ve chosen Fig. 1 because the lot size, home area, and site plan would now be considered small, but not necessarily desirable. The density is 13.8 dwelling units per gross acre as shown in cell F5 of Table 1. It is still not small enough to meet the tiny-home standards I’ve encountered, but is more affordable than many others because of its age, condition, and location. This may not be the affordable housing many are seeking, but its design specification in Table 1 raises several issues relevant to the topic.

The Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules of Table 1 contain approximate specification values from memory that define the fundamental characteristics of the home illustrated by the Fig. 1 site plan. The specification values entered in the shaded cells of the Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules produce the gross building area options shown in cells B41-B49. The value in cell B43 represents the existing home example.

The current small-home arguments I’ve read would seem to challenge the need for the garage shown and specified in cells F25-F27 of Table 1 and the driveway area shown and specified in cell F19. Elimination would mean that the lot size could be further reduced and the density increased. Curb parking is not shown in Fig.1 but is present up and down this street. It turns the two-way street into an alternating one-way system that depends on courtesy and deference to function. It is separated from the home by a 10-foot-deep front yard. The immediate questions concerning this property are:

1)   Can the garage and driveway be eliminated in future plans?

2)      Is the unpaved open space provided in cell F13 adequate in relation to the building mass and pavement present?

3)      Are movement, open space, and life support services adequate?

4)      What is the measurable shelter capacity of the project?

5)      What is the measurable intensity of the project?

6)      What is the measurable intrusion imposed by the floor quantity present?

7)      What is the measurable context of the correlated site plan and building features?

8)      Does this plan contribute to the quality of life of the occupants and surrounding neighborhood?

The calculations related to the physical questions involved are provided in the Implications Module of Table 1, but the data do not provide answers.

The purpose of Table 1 is to show that mathematical evaluation of shelter design decisions, once thought intuitive, is feasible when the calculations are reduced to the strategic foundation on which shelter, form, function, and appearance emerge. Prior to the derivation of Tegimenic equations, however, this analysis has taken place in the creative minds of designers following a random format of trial and error at the drawing board or CAD station. The result has too often been sprawl at one end of the intensity spectrum and excessive intensity at the other.

Figure 2 and Table 2 have been provided to show how small home modification and expansion over time on limited lot areas in response to unknown motivation can lead to compression and deterioration often associated with inner-city neighborhoods. It is a difficult issue because shelter is a fixed asset that does not adjust easily. Any reevaluation that leads to redevelopment, urban renewal, and eminent domain has been political disaster in many cases, but any additional land consumption for affordable housing reduces agriculture and the natural domain that is our source of life.

In my opinion, a successful search for affordable housing will depend on our ability to correlate the many mathematical design decisions involved with the shelter capacity of land for diverse occupant activity. In other words, affordable housing represents one of many demands for land area.

The correlation of land area for shelter capacity, occupant activity, movement, open space, and life support determines the economic stability of the whole. Random experiments responding to market preferences have not balanced the economic equation in my opinion. Affordable housing is not an independent part of this equation. It is not an independent dollhouse like that shown in the cover picture. It is a cell that must be combined to contribute to a healthy anatomy. If you share this opinion, you may realize that information sharing, data science, shelter capacity evaluation, financial analysis, and mapping correlation are some of the tools needed to begin building credible arguments for the shelter capacity equations and proposals needed to correlate urban form, design logic, and data modeling within geographic limits defined to protect both our quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

photo courtesy of: tiny home girl

Combating Shelter Sprawl and Excessive Intensity

The quantity specification for a residential site plan determines the density that will be produced.

The Density Forecast Panel in Table 1 is a function of the project quantity definition provided in the shaded cells of the Land, Pavement, and Apartment Program Modules above, unpaved open space quantity choices from shaded cells A46-A64 in the panel, and floor quantity choices on line 44 of the panel. All density options calculated from these options in the Density Forecast Module are a function of the 68 shaded value decisions and options shown, and a change to one or more of them will change the density results calculated in cells C46-M64 of the Density Forecast Panel.

Table 1 should illustrate that 68 shelter design decisions lead to a density result in this example, and that density does not lead any of them. It is a hurdle that too often creates a guessing game with sprawl and excessive shelter intensity of questionable benefit to an entire municipal economy, and a threat to agriculture and the Natural Domain it consumes, as too-frequent results. Shelter capacity evaluation guided by Tegimenic forecast models and government leadership is one option, but it will not be easy to learn to live within limits.

The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

PS: Please see Table 2 for the calculated intensity and context implications of the Density Forecast Panel calculations in Table 1. As I’ve said before, these calculations are like the first blood pressure readings taken without the research needed to understand their health insights.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

Shaping Urban Pattern, Form, and Space for Shelter Capacity and Economic Stability within Limited Geographic Areas

 Urban Pattern, Form, and Space -- Learning to Live Within Limits

I’ve mentioned in some previous essays that I believe our goal must be to shelter growing populations within limited geographic areas that contain economically correlated urban design compositions of shelter capacity, intensity, and occupant activity. In my opinion, it is the only way we can avoid random, sprawling, and excessive consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain. We cannot do this until we can mathematically measure, predict, evaluate, and lead shelter capacity, intensity, and physical context for activity toward economic stability within these limits.

This is why I have pursued the mathematical language of shelter capacity evaluation and have discussed its evolution in 260+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent have also been published on LinkedIn. The effort has been summarized in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, that is available on Amazon.com. I regret the title, which should have been “Shelter Capacity Evaluation”, since the book is not about the algorithms and equations embedded in shelter capacity forecast models. It is about a template format and design specification topics related to six building design categories that enable the consistent definition, evaluation, and prediction needed for shelter knowledge accumulation and leadership direction.

We will continue to struggle with sprawl and excessive intensity until we can quickly and efficiently calculate shelter capacity options and their implications based on improved information sharing, data science, mapping evaluation, and mathematical correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options with their economic implications. The result can be correlated decisions in a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Shelter density is an attempt to define a cake with a partial recipe of unmixed, uncorrelated ingredients. Is it any wonder that the result often fails to satisfy? Table 1 is my initial attempt to illustrate the correlation required for consistent leadership success. It illustrates a language and format of correlated mathematical expression that can help us measure existing conditions, evaluate shelter options, build knowledge, and pursue leadership direction in terms that can produce consistent success.

TABLE 1

Table 1 applies to the G1.R3 Residential Activity Group.* All zoning ordinances contain some of the shaded cell topics in the Land and Pavement Modules of Table 1, but I doubt that most if not all of the ordinances contain the entire list; and I doubt that those included are mathematically correlated to expose their combined implications and/or contradictions.

*G1.R3 refers to the residential apartment activity group (R3) when served by surface parking around, but not under, the building(s) on the same premises (G1).

The shaded topics in all three modules of Table 1 are interrelated and mathematically correlated to either measure or predict the implications presented in its Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module. A simple density limit has been entered into cell F4 and the number of dwelling units it represents has been calculated in cell F5. This entry and calculation do not determine the specification values entered in the template’s remaining shaded boxes, however. This is the point. Any set of values can be entered in the remaining shaded boxes. The embedded template equations calculate the planning and implication results that will respect the density limit given, even though some results will be far less desirable than others, some will be unbearable, and some will be impossible. In other words, density does not lead to design specification decisions, but it can lead to some very undesirable results.

A brief glance at the shaded boxes in Table 1 should indicate the number of variable design decisions involved. Results calculated in the table’s planning and implication modules will change whenever one or more of the shaded values in its Land and Pavement Modules are modified, but are all options desirable? For instance, lower open space quantities in cells A45-A53 produce larger gross building areas and greater potential return in cells B45-B53, but are lower unpaved open space areas desirable? I could ask the same question about any number of the shaded cell values entered, since any value or combination of values would produce different results.

I don’t believe that arbitrary results have ever been the objective. They happen because the equations of urban design have not been derived to predict shelter capacity options and implications that can lead to evaluation and establish parameters that define a healthy, contained urban anatomy. One that is not a parasitic threat to its host. The fact that they now exist does not mean that the effort is over. It has just begun. The Planning and Implication Modules in Table 1 have been provided to assist the effort and are included for every building design category and activity group in The Equations of Urban Design.

At this time, we can calculate the planning and implication results produced by templates of design specification values for classified building design categories like the one presented in Table 1. I have mentioned in other essays, however, that looking at Table 1 results is like looking at the first blood pressure readings. The reader will have no grasp of the health indicated or the parameters needed. (The impossible results are shown in parentheses.) New research is required. The result can be a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

Shelter Design Specifications and Affordable Housing

 

The values entered in the design specification template of a building design category forecast model determine the gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that will be produced. This standardized format of classification, measurement, and comparison can contribute to shelter design knowledge and leadership over time.

A building design category is a generic form of shelter that may be occupied by any permitted activity group. The area may also assume any architectural form or style. The design specification topics and algorithms for each category vary, but the format and subtraction leading to the core area remaining for building and parking cover remains the same. Master equations have been derived to predict the gross building area, footprint, and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of the remaining core area based on the specification values entered. A change to one or more of the specification values entered produces a new implication predictions.

Research and evaluation of the results produced by building category forecast models can build the knowledge needed to identify the physical parameters that define what we have called “quality of life” or “health, safety, and welfare”.

Activity groups occupy generic building design categories. The residential activity group has been led by density measurements. The non-residential group has been led by the floor area ratio. Both measurements define limitations but do not lead the design specification decisions that produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context within the cities we inhabit. The results have too often been shelter sprawl and excessive shelter intensity expanding across the face of a limited planet expected to serve an expanding population. At least one contributing factor has been the lack of a consistent building classification system and design specification format capable of measuring, predicting, evaluating, and building knowledge about the physical design decisions needed to shelter our social and economic activity within geographic limits.

BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES

The gross building area potential of a given land area is a mathematical function of the building design category chosen. There are only six when classification is diverted from architectural period and style to the parking system used to serve a building. This classification makes the mathematical prediction of gross building area options for any given land area feasible.

In my opinion, the accurate calculation of shelter demand and capacity is the only way to limit the Built Domain and protect our source of life, the Natural Domain, from excessive pollution and encroachment. I’ve mentioned building design category classification on many occasions but will repeat it here since shelter capacity is a mathematical function of the choice. The six categories are:

(G1) All buildings served by surface parking around, but not under, the building on the same premise, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(G2) All buildings served by surface parking around and/or under the building on the same premise, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S1) All buildings served by adjacent parking garage levels, spaces, and auxiliary surface parking that consume a portion of the core land area on the same premises, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S2) All buildings served by an underground parking garage within the buildable land area of the premises, and auxiliary surface parking area, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S3) All buildings served by a parking garage below the building, and auxiliary surface parking within the core land area of the same premises, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(NP) All buildings without surface or structure parking on the same premises.

I have included a seventh non-habitable building design category in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” to address remote, stand-alone parking garage design options.

(PG) All buildings used as independent parking structures on separate lots or parcels, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

GENERIC SHELTER CAPACITY FORECAST MODELS

A generic building design category may be occupied by any permitted activity. However, the characteristics of some activity groups require modification of the design specification topics in a forecast model. A forecast model related to the Residential Activity Group will be introduced as an example after this discussion.

The shelter capacity of a building design category varies widely depending on the values entered in the design specification template of its forecast model. This can be explained by examining the design specification topics and values entered in the modules of Table 1. They apply to the G1 Building Design Category, but the concept is universally applicable even though the topics may be adjusted to suit some categories and occupant activity groups.

Land Module

The shaded cells on lines 3-20 of Table 1 identify value entry locations in a typical Land Module. They are used by embedded template equations to lead from the gross land area given in cell F3 to the buildable land area calculated in cell F10, and the remaining shelter land area in cell F17. A review of the module will reveal the subtraction used to arrive at the land area available for shelter introduction in cell F17.

I’d like to draw special attention to the unpaved open space specification (OSAU) in cell F11. It has often been ignored by design standards, but determines the building compression of space introduced. In addition, the remaining impervious cover percentage is identified by subtraction in cell F12, and must be accommodated by the storm sewer capacity present or proposed.

Core Module

Subtraction of shaded cell values and calculation continues in cells F23-F32 to find the core land area (CORE) available for building and parking cover in cell F33.

Planning Forecast Panel

The core value calculated in the Core Module of Table 1 is the final value needed by the master equation in cell B39 to calculate gross building area options (GBA) in cells B44-B53 of the Planning Forecast Panel. These alternatives are a function of the floor quantity options entered into shaded cells A44-A53.

I’d like to draw special attention to the estimated parking and circulation area per space (s) entered in cell A35 and the building sq. ft. permitted per parking space (a) entered in cell A36 since they combine with the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 to influence the remaining land available for a building floor plan or “footprint” and the ensuing gross building area potential produced by the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53.

I should remind you that Table 1 is related to the G1 Building Design Category. Gross building area options are a function of a building category choice and the design specification values entered in its design specification module.

Gross building area alone is a value within a spectrum of options that vary with the design category chosen and design specification values entered, but it doesn’t indicate the implications involved. These are calculated in the following module.

Implications Panel

The shelter capacity implications of a set of design specification values and gross building area results in cells A44-A53 are measured in column F of the Implications Panel, based on the equation in cell F43. Intensity, Intrusion and Context implications are measured in columns G, H and J based on the equations in cells G43, H43 and J43.

Correlation and Comparison

The correlation of design specification decisions produces gross building area predictions and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. Density is a product of these correlated decisions. It does not lead them or define their desirable parameters. A

t the present time a review of implication calculations, or measurements, is like staring at the first blood pressure readings. It took a great deal of measurement, observation, correlation, and collaboration over time to build the knowledge needed to define healthy parameters.

ACTIVITY GROUPS

Table 2 addresses the G1 Building Design Category when it is occupied by the R1 Residential Activity Group. This group includes all single family detached residential homes on recorded lots. The design specification template of Table 2 includes Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules containing 24 shaded cells that require value entries.

The Table 2 design specification format has been chosen to show hat the density entered does not lead the decisions required in the remaining 23 shaded cells. It simply defines the minimum net lot area calculated in cell G5, which is substantially below that used for current single-family lots. Based on correlation of the other values entered in the shaded cells of Table 2, the Planning Forecast Panel predicts that a two-story home, excluding garage, could equal 1,016 sq. ft. in cell B43. It does not predict, however, that a satisfactory floor plan and building elevation can be produced on the lot size defined in cell G5.

The point is that the home area results produced in cells B41-B49 are not a function of the density requirement. The most significant factors were the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F13, the pavement requirements entered in cells F17-F20, and the garage requirements entered in cells F25 and F26. Any or all of these values could be adjusted to produce different home area results that would affect the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications calculated in the Implications Panel.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

I didn’t choose this example as an illustration of current residential subdivision aspirations. I chose it to illustrate the mathematical correlation of design specification decisions required to clarify leadership intent regarding shelter capacity direction, and to illustrate the design decisions involved with affordable housing; since I believe it comes down to the cost of the land area devoted to each dwelling unit, the square foot area and cost of the dwelling unit, and the open space that remans to relieve the intensity introduced. This does not mean that these physical design decisions will be considered compatible with adjacent land use decisions, patterns, and property values. It is simply meant to explain the physical, mathematical decisions involved so they can be carefully examined.

PS: REPEAT FROM “PURSUING URBAN DESIGN KNOWLEDGE”

“Gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity. Its internal capacity for activity varies with the specification values entered in a companion activity group template. The addition of an activity group template to a building category forecast model correlates the predicted gross building area options for land with each option’s internal capacity for the activity based on the specification values entered in the companion activity group template. The results have economic potential related to the scope of activity predicted within the gross building area options predicted.

I’ve illustrated the building design category-activity group relationship with the Residential Activity Group of specification templates in several previous essays. A more complete presentation is included in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”.

Shelter capacity results have social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that remain to be correlated with measurement and evaluation that can lead to knowledge regarding the quality of life implied by measurable alternatives.

Currently the Shelter Division of the Built Domain is served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions in both the Urban and Rural Phyla of a Built Domain that is currently a parasitic threat to the Natural Domain. This threat cannot be addressed with debate over the details of independent, conflicting zoning regulations that require arbitrary adjustment, or land use master plans that depend on annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain to address budget deficiencies based on land use activity and shelter capacity misallocation.

Shelter capacity evaluation is a measurement language capable of evaluating options and guiding decisions toward the goal of shelter for the activities of growing populations within limited geographic areas designated and designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain. It is simply a classification and measurement language that can be used to pursue research and define conclusions capable of consistent context leadership, however.

The Latin word for shelter, roof, or cover is “tegimen”. I pronounce it “tejimen”, even though this may offend Latin scholars, and would like to suggest the word “Tegimenics”, “Tegimenistics”, or “Tegimenology” as a label for those interested in pursuing the issue of shelter capacity and quality of life for growing populations in limited geographic areas on a planet in a universe that expects us to anticipate its unwritten Law of Limits. It is a language intended to give a quantitative voice and credible support for emerging but also ancient topics many refer to as urban design or city design with roots in architectural design.”

PSS: REPEAT FROM SEVERAL EARLIER ESSAYS

“I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published on Amazon.com in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involving private enterprise and architecture, landscape architecture, government, city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, and economic development. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

I also maintain a blog entitled, “Cities and Design” at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com that began in September 2010. It currently contains 260+ essays for anyone interested in following the topic. The more recent essays are also included on LinkedIn.”

Walter M. Hosack, October 2025

Planning, Economic Development, Urban Design, and Government

 

Economic development will continue to be a strategy based on hope until a city can correlate its annual expense per taxable acre with the annual revenue it receives per acre from every taxable parcel or block, tract, and zone within its boundaries. At this point it will be able to correlate its average expense per taxable acre with the average yield per taxable acre it requires to deliver a desirable quality of life within its boundaries. It is rather obvious that “desirable” will remain a political question as well as a financial issue; that “within” can only be answered by scientific evaluation; and that both will be subject to unstable popular opinion that Jefferson debated with the term “self-evident”.  

At this point public leadership will have the information needed to pursue an economic strategy based on data science and Tegimenic analysis of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and revenue options at the level of financial analysis, strategic planning, and urban design visualization needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain.

Walter M. Hosack, October 2025